Bert wrote:When Peter D posts something, it has to involve American politics and/or some sort of Bush-bash. How much stock do you put in something that was reported from memory, what was heard from a translator, and than translated back into English, and then denied by the original reporter?(In addition to that, Bush also denies having said it.)

The above quote was reported in Ha'aretz, one of Israel's most reputable newspapers. It was also revealed in a three-part series on BBC TWO television, Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs. Now, whether it was reported correctly or not, only god knows, eh, Bert?

Btw, I did not purposely try to involve American politics nor Bush-bash (not this time anyway). Heck, Bert, I didn't even resort to calling "your" President Chimp, nor by any of the awful adjectives that truly describe him: like incompetent, stupid, moronic, feebleminded, dense, imbecile, retarded, etc., etc., etc..

No siree, Bob!---oops, I mean Bert. It all has to do with hypocrisy---the hypocrisy of the religious right in America that claims to be morally and virtuously upright and yet helps elect/re-elect a war mongering human being to the Oval Office. So I ask myself, Bert, when I think of all those innocent human beings that are killed daily in Iraq and Afghanistan, "What kind of crazy god do these fundamentalist "Christians" believe in?"

That's all for now.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Here is what we know for sure, so far. Journalist Arnon Regular wrote, in the June 26 edition of Ha'aretz (Israel's most reputable newspaper), that he has minutes of a meeting among top-level Palestinian leaders, including Prime Minister Mahmoud Abas. The minutes are apparently quite detailed, because Regular wrote a long article recounting very specific conversations. The last paragraph of the article reads:

"According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'"

Before you jump to any conclusions, remember that you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Mahmoud Abas does not speak English. Bush does not speak Arabic. If Bush said these words, or something like them, Abas heard them from a translator. Then Abas repeated them, as he remembered them a couple of weeks later, in Arabic. Some unknown person wrote down what he thought he heard Abas say. Then Regular, or someone at Ha'aretz, translated them back into English-or perhaps first into Hebrew and then into English.

Clearly, we don't yet know what Bush said, or why. Just as clearly, the man has some explaining to do. And whatever the truth of the matter, he has serious problems.

And then the curious detail that Abas later denied having heard this.
I will say that if Bush did say this (he denies it) than he is living in some sort of never-never land.

The one true God, Creator of all things, Savior of my soul, the Alpha & Omega........shall I go on.

I can't speak for all fundamentalists but this is a small, inadequate description of the God I serve.

Rhuiden

That is exactly the God I serve.
However I don't believe that God would give a special revelation about whether to attack or not to attack.
I am very sceptical about the accuracy about the quote though.
(Bush has been known to say things in a rather mumbo-jumbo way so if he did say it, he probably meant something different.)

PeterD wrote:Btw, I did not purposely try to involve American politics nor Bush-bash (not this time anyway). Heck, Bert, I didn't even resort to calling "your" President Chimp, nor by any of the awful adjectives that truly describe him: like incompetent, stupid, moronic, feebleminded, dense, imbecile, retarded, etc., etc., etc..

Peter, I've got just the guy for you. His name is David Icke and he shares your opinions about the Bush family.

You'll doubtless enjoy these observations by Mr. Icke:

"Among them were the US Presidents, .... most appallingly, George Bush, a: major player in the Brotherhood, as my books and others have long exposed. It was Bush, a paedophile and serial killer, who regularly abused and raped Cathy's daughter, Kelly O'Brien, as a toddler before her mother's courageous exposure of these staggering events forced the authorities to remove Kelly from the mind control programme known as Project Monarch. Cathy writes in Trance Formation Of America of how George Bush was sitting in front of her in his office in Washington DC when, he opened a book at a page depicting "lizard-like aliens from a far off, deep space place."

"Bush then claimed to be an 'alien' himself and appeared, before her eyes, to transform 'like a chameleon' into a reptile. Cathy believed that some kind of hologram had been activated to achieve this and from her understanding at the time I can see why she rationalised her experience in this way. Anyone would, because the truth is too fantastic to comprehend until you see the build up of evidence....But given the evidence presented by so many other people, I don't believe that what Bush said and Cathy saw was just a mind control programme.

...I think he was revealing the Biggest Secret, that a reptilian race from another dimension has been controlling the planet for thousands of years. I know other people who have seen Bush shape-shift into a reptilian..."

Now, please explain why you don't show the same kind of healthy scepticism when it comes to the bible---a text that has undergone countless of editions and revisions before it became more or less fixed, sometime in the 5th century if I am not mistaken?

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Rhuiden wrote:Also, my faith is in the one true God of the universe because of what He did in my life. I know what He did for me. I know how He changed my life.

You should give yourself more credit. YOU made the effort. YOU made the sacrifices. YOU did it all, my dear friend.

Take care.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Paul wrote:Peter, I've got just the guy for you. His name is David Icke and he shares your opinions about the Bush family.

I know I've done my good deed for the day when I have schlepped Paul into the discussion.

[Btw, any luck tracking down that answer key?]

Take care.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Rhuiden wrote:Mere Christianity is on my reading list. I plan to get to it someday. I have heard it is an excellent book.

I'm going to be reading that some time soon, probably this summer. Another reading group!

Yikes! You can be nasty when you wanna be.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD wrote:Now, please explain why you don't show the same kind of healthy scepticism when it comes to the bible---a text that has undergone countless of editions and revisions before it became more or less fixed, sometime in the 5th century if I am not mistaken?

You are mistaken on this "fact". We have more evidence that the Bible we have today is the Bible as it was originally written than any other ancient document that exists. I think you may have been reading the DaVinci Code and been misled by Dan Brown's lies.

PeterD wrote:

Rhuiden wrote:

Also, my faith is in the one true God of the universe because of what He did in my life. I know what He did for me. I know how He changed my life.

You should give yourself more credit. YOU made the effort. YOU made the sacrifices. YOU did it all, my dear friend.

I truly appreciate the confidence you have in me an my abilities but unfortunately it is misplaced. I can change my behavior but only God can change my nature. Without Him, I would have no hope, I would be living an empty life, and I would be destined to spend eternity separated from Him in Hell.

PeterD wrote:Now, please explain why you don't show the same kind of healthy scepticism when it comes to the bible---a text that has undergone countless of editions and revisions before it became more or less fixed, sometime in the 5th century if I am not mistaken?

You are mistaken on this "fact". We have more evidence that the Bible we have today is the Bible as it was originally written than any other ancient document that exists. I think you may have been reading the DaVinci Code and been misled by Dan Brown's lies.

ethopoeia wrote:With that John Wayne look Ã la Indian killer -a previous edition of the clash of civilizations- I rather think of the God Sabbaoth, Lord of the Heavenly Armies //+++// :D

You don't like John Wayne?

God is the Lord of the Heavenly Armies but He is so much more.

By the way, the Heavenly Armies are doing battle right now. They are fighting a spiritual war with Satan and his armies. But get this, the outcome is already decided and we know who wins. Choose this day whom you will serve....as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

I have heard that it is very warm there, much better than here in the Netherlands. I like to travel to exotic places, can't wait to see hell.

If this is truly your desire, God will not stop you but it will sadden Him immeasurably. It is not God's will that any should be separated from Him.

I have heard Hell described in many ways but this is the first time I have heard the adjective "exotic" used. I urge you to not joke in this manner. Spending eternity separated from God is a very serious matter.

Sorry, bad joke. Personnaly I don't believe in eternal seperation from God, because God lives in your heart, not in heaven. If you see God as a sort of parent figure, maybe he has to punish sometimes, but I don't think that a father, or God, would be so cruel to punish you forever.

Sanskrit wrote:Sorry, bad joke. :) Personnaly I don't believe in eternal seperation from God, because God lives in your heart, not in heaven. If you see God as a sort of parent figure, maybe he has to punish sometimes, but I don't think that a father, or God, would be so cruel to punish you forever.

This is a common misunderstanding of what happens. God does not punish a person forever, He simply allows the person to experience the consequences of their choices. In other words, if a person chooses to be separated from God while they are alive, He does not force them to be with Him for eternity. He simply gives them what they chose.

The Good News is that anyone and everyone can chose not to go to Hell. It is as simple as accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

Also, you are correct God does live in our hearts, in the form of the Holy Spirit, if you have accepted Jesus. But He also lives in Heaven, in the form of the Father (one God in three persons).

Rhuiden wrote:By the way, the Heavenly Armies are doing battle right now. They are fighting a spiritual war with Satan and his armies. But get this, the outcome is already decided and we know who wins. Choose this day whom you will serve....

Aaaghhh!

In the interest of mutual understanding, an anecdote and a theory:

I grew up being the natural prey of bullies, the usual consequence of a bookish disposition. As a result I have a highly developed sense of impending trouble from groups of young men intent on mischief, probably an over-developed sense. Years of martial arts training means I'm confident that I'm able to defend myself (once tested live with satisfying results for me), but when I wander through the busy part of town at night, especially near bar-time, with a hair-trigger setting on my poor, abused adrenals to call up an extra dose of adrenalin.

When I hear Christians use this martial language about battles against Satan's armies, I have the same fight-or-flight rush. It just completely freaks me out, and I know other non-christians who feel the same.

So the next time you're witnessing to some benighted unbeliever, and after a period of things going well, the unbeliever suddenly becomes belligerant or spastic or flees, you might want to review what you just said. I'd bet a lot of the time this martial language was the trigger.

annis wrote:So the next time you're witnessing to some benighted unbeliever, and after a period of things going well, the unbeliever suddenly becomes belligerant or spastic or flees, you might want to review what you just said. I'd bet a lot of the time this martial language was the trigger.

But in Rhuiden's defense, he was simply responding to ethopoeia's [somewhat inflammatory] post about "God Sabbaoth, Lord of the Heavenly Armies." So, it is hardly an example of a Christian suddenly switching on a bunch of "martial language."

annis wrote:once tested live with satisfying results for me

I would love to hear the details of what happened, if you're inclined to share them.

Rhuiden wrote:This is a common misunderstanding of what happens. God does not punish a person forever, He simply allows the person to experience the consequences of their choices. In other words, if a person chooses to be separated from God while they are alive, He does not force them to be with Him for eternity. He simply gives them what they chose.

The Good News is that anyone and everyone can chose not to go to Hell. It is as simple as accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

He isn't punishing a person forever, but he does allow someone to be punished forever based on his decision not to accept Jesus. Isn't that the same? There's not much of a decision left anymore. Either accept Jesus or choose for eternal damnation.

Sanskrit wrote:He isn't punishing a person forever, but he does allow someone to be punished forever based on his decision not to accept Jesus. Isn't that the same? There's not much of a decision left anymore. Either accept Jesus or choose for eternal damnation.

Allowing something to happen is not the same as causing it to happen. But you have it exactly right, those are the two alternatives, once we understand the choice we have then we have no-one but ourselves to blame.

Well I'm not sure he needs defending. I was taking an oppurtunity to make a general statement. I can hardly read every post on Textkit any more, but this is the first time I've seen Rhuiden use martial language in this context here.

Surely you do not deny that this sort of martial language is common in some evangelical circles? I can't be the only person encountering this regularly.

annis wrote:once tested live with satisfying results for me

I would love to hear the details of what happened, if you're inclined to share them.

Not really, and it's not very interesting, and would probably have been less nice for me had my dancing partner been sober and more committed to his goals. I just learned that after years of training, certain defensive moves are automatic, even if I'm a bit out of practice. That's reassuring.

annis wrote:When I hear Christians use this martial language about battles against Satan's armies, I have the same fight-or-flight rush. It just completely freaks me out, and I know other non-christians who feel the same.

So the next time you're witnessing to some benighted unbeliever, and after a period of things going well, the unbeliever suddenly becomes belligerant or spastic or flees, you might want to review what you just said. I'd bet a lot of the time this martial language was the trigger.

Thank you for the advice on what non-believers hear when certain language is used. My desire is, in a caring way, to plant a seed that causes the non-believer to think about the topic being discussed. I don't intend to "freak them out".

ethopoeia wrote:With that John Wayne look Ã la Indian killer -a previous edition of the clash of civilizations- I rather think of the God Sabbaoth, Lord of the Heavenly Armies //+++//

You don't like John Wayne?

God is the Lord of the Heavenly Armies but He is so much more.

By the way, the Heavenly Armies are doing battle right now. They are fighting a spiritual war with Satan and his armies. But get this, the outcome is already decided and we know who wins. Choose this day whom you will serve....as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Rhuiden

No, I actually dislike trigger-happy John Wayne -he represents a former clash of civilizations between the 7th Heavenly Cavalry and Satan's Cherokee civilists.

Make sure there's no graphic evidence when St Michael commands to open Celestial balls of fire against non-believing civilian devils -He may end up sitting in an earthly War Crime Court Martial, cowboy.

Being this my first post in the Academy I think it is better to introduce myself again. Iâ€™m Andrus in Textkit, Andre outside. Iâ€™m atheist, meaning that I donâ€™t believe in the existing of a God, but I do respect the believes of everyone so I will not trying to convert (or uncovert) anyone or insult anyone believes. Being the forum a place where sometimes it is hard to tell irony or jokes from serious statements and if something I write offends someone please take in mind that wasnâ€™t my intention. If that happens please inform me so I can apology and donâ€™t repeat it again.

Rhuiden wrote:Sanskrit wrote:

He isn't punishing a person forever, but he does allow someone to be punished forever based on his decision not to accept Jesus. Isn't that the same? There's not much of a decision left anymore. Either accept Jesus or choose for eternal damnation.

Allowing something to happen is not the same as causing it to happen. But you have it exactly right, those are the two alternatives, once we understand the choice we have then we have no-one but ourselves to blame.

Rhuiden

Rhuiden that was something that bother me a little with the fact that God is consider to be omniscient. My soul (considering that I have one for the sake of discussion) was made by God, I presume that was made with some intention as I canâ€™t see God acting by a mood. God when made it knew exactly the way He want it, knew exactly what kind of environment it would be exposed, and as He knows everything it must have known that I would be come an atheist, so how it is my choice that in your point of view will led me to eternal punishment?

Basically I canâ€™t consolidate both concepts, free will and God being omniscient. I know that this is it a little off the original discussion in this post but follows naturally from the point that the post it is now.

Did he shoot somebody, or are you just unhappy with the characters he played in movies?

I think I should apply now Cicero's sentence -please correct me if I'm wrong- odi delictum ac miseri delinquentem and aim for the character rather than for the person.

Of course, playing the character of a nazi in a movie doesn't automatically turn you into a nazi, just like playing the character of a cowboy doesn't turn you automatically into a cowboy.

However, showing the character of a nazi or a cowboy in an apologetic and heroic fashion may spread nazi or cowboy aesthetics or ideology, which is mainly:

1. racist: whites are superior to Jews, Indians, Blacks, Arabs, Spanish or any other people.
2. imperialist: whites have the right to settle wherever they please.
3. genocide: whites have the right to exterminate any of the aforesaid peoples.
4. fanatic: God will lead us to victory against our enemies.

ethopoeia wrote:Of course, playing the character of a nazi in a movie doesn't automatically turn you into a nazi, just like playing the character of a cowboy doesn't turn you automatically into a cowboy.

OK, not automatically, but maybe sometimes?

ethopoeia wrote:may spread nazi or cowboy aesthetics or ideology, which is mainly:

So you equate nazi "aesthetics" and "ideology" with those of cowboys?

And didn't John Wayne perform in a lot of war movies where he was fighting nazis? So by your logic, showing his picture would also be spreading "anti-nazi" ideology, right?

I'm always amazed when someone feels the need to equate the object of their dislike with nazis. To me, it always discredits the argument (because a true equality is almost never there). It seems like something Hitler's propagandists would do if they were still around today.

I equally share your concern about the many fake nazis wandering out there -that's the bad thing about nazis, you never know who's a nazi and who's not.

However, if nazis and cowboys were the same thing, I wouldn't have them compared, but both included within a broader category of global nazis.

Since there's no such a thing as global nazis, I can only compare nazi / cowboy aesthetics and ideology -white racism, settler imperialism, Untermensch genocide, religious fanatism- in order to draw a clear line between both.

For, if a nazi and a cowboy are different concepts, there must be a line, right?

You posted an excellent question, and one that I have struggled with. I know I am stepping into the middle of a conversation, but I would like to answer your question to the best of my ability.

Andrus wrote:Rhuiden that was something that bother me a little with the fact that God is consider to be omniscient. My soul (considering that I have one for the sake of discussion) was made by God, I presume that was made with some intention as I canâ€™t see God acting by a mood. God when made it knew exactly the way He want it, knew exactly what kind of environment it would be exposed, and as He knows everything it must have known that I would be come an atheist, so how it is my choice that in your point of view will led me to eternal punishment?

Basically I canâ€™t consolidate both concepts, free will and God being omniscient. I know that this is it a little off the original discussion in this post but follows naturally from the point that the post it is now.

First I must say that I do believe in eternal punishment, and it is one of my least favorite concepts in the bible. I don't like it at all, nonetheless, it is what the bible teaches.

For me (as well as you) I guess the issue comes down to this: If God made me this way, how can he damn me??

The answer is a bit more complex than the question, but to boil it down to it's essence, the fact that you are asking this question, illustrates your choice.

Here is what the bible teaches:

God desires ALL men (and women) to be saved, that is, to come into fellowship with Him, by His Son's sacrifice on the cross. This salvation has nothing to do with anything that I have done to earn God's favor, it has everything to do with how I respond to His Son.

God then gives us the choice: Accept His Son, or don't accept His Son. For those who DO accept His Son, God offers salvation (both temporally to a degree, but most importantly eternally). To those who DON'T accept His Son....God continues to offer the choice.

The fact that we are having this conversation, is merely another offer of God's grace to you. Ultimately the choice is yours, to respond, or not to respond. God did not make us automatons. He does give us a very real choice. However, when we make that choice, it never catches Him by suprise!

Does this make any sense to you at all? Or does it merely sound like semantics? My challenge to you is....test Him at His word. Get a bible, read it. Find the holes and the problems in it. Look at it for what it is.....a book of Faith. I truly believe that the genuine can be tested. For me, when I became a Christian, I refused to commit intellectual su1cide. At the same time, I do have to balance faith with fact. Personally I like to lean on fact, but there is a point where faith truly does have to happen.

For me, faith happened when I quit meth. I was a meth addict who had tried to quit numerous times on my own. When I hit bottom, and asked God for help to quit....I was amazed that it actually happened. I was quite dumbfounded, as were all the people around me. One typically does not go from being a meth addict into a non-user in a day. But that is what happened with me. For me this was a proof (i.e. fact) of God's existence. I responded in faith, and my life has never been the same. That is not to say there are not still days that suck, nor days that I swear far too much, or blow my top, but it is to say that overall, the pattern and path of my life has changed immeasurable.

Hope this helps make some sense of the issue to you. FWIW, I am NOT trying to actively convert you, I am merely telling you what I know to be true in my own life a I experienced it. Whether or not what I have to say has any impact on you is entirely your choice!

ethopoeia wrote:However, showing the character of a nazi or a cowboy in an apologetic and heroic fashion may spread nazi or cowboy aesthetics or ideology, which is mainly:

1. racist: whites are superior to Jews, Indians, Blacks, Arabs, Spanish or any other people. 2. imperialist: whites have the right to settle wherever they please. 3. genocide: whites have the right to exterminate any of the aforesaid peoples. 4. fanatic: God will lead us to victory against our enemies.

I hope nobody here has that kind of ideology.

I think what you are trying to do is assign these characteristics or ideologies to Christians. Only #4 can be assigned to Christians but not in the way you mean it. True followers of Jesus do not hold such beliefs. There are many who call themselves Christians and hold these beliefs but they are not true christians.

ethopoeia wrote:However, if nazis and cowboys were the same thing, I wouldn't have them compared, but both included within a broader category of global nazis.

Since there's no such a thing as global nazis, I can only compare nazi / cowboy aesthetics and ideology -white racism, settler imperialism, Untermensch genocide, religious fanatism- in order to draw a clear line between both.

I am curious, are you implying that John Wayne held these beliefs because he played a cowboy is some of his movies or that I do because I am a Christian.

Rhuiden wrote:By the way, the Heavenly Armies are doing battle right now. They are fighting a spiritual war with Satan and his armies. But get this, the outcome is already decided and we know who wins.

Rhuiden

God is awesome and very dangerous indeed.

Do God's armies stand before a court martial when they kill civilians?